STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning
Since President Nixon announced a crackdown in the early 1970s, the 'War on Drugs' has been probably the main source of arrests in the United States, caused families across the country to fragment and fall apart, and made America the country with the highest jail population in the developed world and beyond. This hard line stance, that serves to illuminate a particular section of society and make them scapegoats, is designed to act as a moral standpoint that appears to be acted on, but is actually doing more harm than good, creating criminals out of otherwise law-abiding, non violent people, and targeting America's black population more than any other. Eugene Jarecki delves headfirst into the front line of those affected by this war, from the low level dealers and their families, academics, those involved in treatment, but more startlingly even those on the other side of the fence, such as a host of disillusioned lawmen, judges and penal workers, whose opinions have also shifted to the more liberal way of thinking.
Independent film is easily the best way to express an opinion artistically that mainstream cinema would not comfortably touch with a bargepole. While usually in America it comes from expressing an opinion that others would consider unpatriotic, here Eugene Jarecki has created an in-depth, thorough assault on a moral standpoint that has been the word of law for several decades now, and that other countries soon followed suit with, such as Britain with the Misuse of Drugs Act. The most high profile contribution comes from David Simon, the creator of highly successful cop show The Wire, and it's most startling that we hear from a series of cops who question the validity of what they're doing.
It plays almost in the manner of a prosecution barrister acting against the War on drugs in court. We hear evidence that it has racist origins from the last century, that play into its racist nature today, which disproportionately targets black communities more than any other, that judges are not free to use their own discretion and judgement when sentencing, but are instead saddled with guidelines that they must obey without fail, that unscrupulous cops can use it to boost their arrest rate and even steal property through civil asset seizure, and that it's all just basically an excuse to do away with those who those in power don't see as having any use to society, beginning with the black community in the 80s with crack cocaine, before progressing to white trailer parks in more recent times with crystal meth.
Jarecki has studied the evidence, and knows which cards he's chosen, and what has to be admired is the sheer thoroughness and depth with which he's presented his case. If people who are meant to be on the front line can have their opinions swayed after years of bitter experience, surely a casual viewer who maybe has an unsympathetic view to drug addicts can. The only ones who surely never will (in public, anyway) are the self serving, hollow politicians who would never risk their careers by saying what they truly think. ****
Since President Nixon announced a crackdown in the early 1970s, the 'War on Drugs' has been probably the main source of arrests in the United States, caused families across the country to fragment and fall apart, and made America the country with the highest jail population in the developed world and beyond. This hard line stance, that serves to illuminate a particular section of society and make them scapegoats, is designed to act as a moral standpoint that appears to be acted on, but is actually doing more harm than good, creating criminals out of otherwise law-abiding, non violent people, and targeting America's black population more than any other. Eugene Jarecki delves headfirst into the front line of those affected by this war, from the low level dealers and their families, academics, those involved in treatment, but more startlingly even those on the other side of the fence, such as a host of disillusioned lawmen, judges and penal workers, whose opinions have also shifted to the more liberal way of thinking.
Independent film is easily the best way to express an opinion artistically that mainstream cinema would not comfortably touch with a bargepole. While usually in America it comes from expressing an opinion that others would consider unpatriotic, here Eugene Jarecki has created an in-depth, thorough assault on a moral standpoint that has been the word of law for several decades now, and that other countries soon followed suit with, such as Britain with the Misuse of Drugs Act. The most high profile contribution comes from David Simon, the creator of highly successful cop show The Wire, and it's most startling that we hear from a series of cops who question the validity of what they're doing.
It plays almost in the manner of a prosecution barrister acting against the War on drugs in court. We hear evidence that it has racist origins from the last century, that play into its racist nature today, which disproportionately targets black communities more than any other, that judges are not free to use their own discretion and judgement when sentencing, but are instead saddled with guidelines that they must obey without fail, that unscrupulous cops can use it to boost their arrest rate and even steal property through civil asset seizure, and that it's all just basically an excuse to do away with those who those in power don't see as having any use to society, beginning with the black community in the 80s with crack cocaine, before progressing to white trailer parks in more recent times with crystal meth.
Jarecki has studied the evidence, and knows which cards he's chosen, and what has to be admired is the sheer thoroughness and depth with which he's presented his case. If people who are meant to be on the front line can have their opinions swayed after years of bitter experience, surely a casual viewer who maybe has an unsympathetic view to drug addicts can. The only ones who surely never will (in public, anyway) are the self serving, hollow politicians who would never risk their careers by saying what they truly think. ****